Thursday, October 25, 2012

McKenna and Gay "Marriage"---Sponsored by the Seattle Times

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
The Seattle Times, as many of you know, is in the tank for Rob McKenna and so-called gay "marriage."

An unusual, perhaps desperate, lunge toward survival has brought them to contribute substantially in money and influence to both McKenna and the redefinition of marriage. And to advance a deeply held secular progressive belief, even in the face of some harsh criticism.

What should biblical Christians--- evangelical Christians make of this?

Ironically, the Times' actions are raising questions from the conservative right and the progressive left. In some cases, it is the same question.

To further confuse those who may still believe the Times is a reliable, unbiased news source, Alan Fisco, executive vice president for revenue, explained that this is "a pilot project to show the power of newspaper political advertising and to attract new revenue."

Since the newspaper is strongly endorsing both McKenna and same-sex "marriage," does that mean they will endorse any one or any cause for the price of a newspaper ad? Or simply, anyone who passes their moral litmus test?

If not, their experiment is flawed and misleading. A paid ad does not equate to an endorsement and free ads.

Are they purposefully misleading future potential political advertisers? Or underestimating their intelligence?

And why is the Times so comfortable with McKenna, when they have refused to endorse other candidates because of the candidate's beliefs on social issues---specifically marriage and life?

Here are a couple of facts and questions every biblical Christian must ask themselves before they vote.

Some facts and questions:

1. The Times declared that John Koster is highly qualified for public office, but they could not endorse him, they said, because of his personal social [biblical] values. He is strongly pro-life and strongly supports marriage as between one man and one woman. And is leading in at least some polls for the first Congressional District, because he is highly qualified for the job.

The Times says they support McKenna because he is "an easy way to end the gridlock that threatens to cripple state government."

Does that mean they think McKenna is so liberal the Democrats will support him and Republicans will also support him because he is "Republican?" And Republicans only want to win and will put Party over principles? Will the conservative Republicans we have contributed to and supported during this campaign lose their way, forget their home town promises, and once in Olympia, support some policies they should not support as they follow their Republican leader?

Evidently, the Times folks are so comfortable with McKenna on social issues and so sure he will not rock their "values" boat, they have no reason not endorse him.

Does that matter to you? Does it bother you?

2. Fisco says this decision was made "completely separate from the journalism functions of the newspaper."

There was really no need to consult them regarding the endorsements.

Why have the journalists written a letter to their employer, the Times, objecting to this new "normal" in the news business.

The fact is the Times already has a complicit journalism side. The news side already writes stories that elevate same-sex "marriage," abortion and other far left secular progressive causes and diminish those who oppose the causes and support life and marriage. Remember their recent hit piece on Bishop Sartain? The Times called the bishop "out of touch," because he believes in traditional marriage.

So why have the journalists reacted toward their employer? I think it's because it further unmasks their bias. And un-necessarily so.

Roy Peter Clark, with the national journalism think tank, Poynter Institute says, "Their credibility is at stake."

Todd Donovan, political science professor at Western Washington University says, "The Times credibility takes a big hit here."

Fisco's Fiasco.

3. Given the Times' propensity to support candidates whom they feel will advance "choice," abortion, the redefinition of marriage and other progressive ideals (or at least not stand in the way) and oppose those who actually hold traditional biblical values, does it bother you at all that they are so committed to McKenna?

Based on all the numbers I've seen, McKenna cannot win without a substantial number of votes from conservative, biblical Christians.

There are two messages being advanced by McKenna. One, he really is a Republican. Two, he really doesn't embrace many of the Republican Party's stated values.

On October 8, the Seattle Times got a little concerned and published an article under their "truth needle" series. In it they defend McKenna against some of the fundamental beliefs of the Republican Party, saying he disagrees with the Party's position on abortion, "supports a woman's right to choose" and would not try to advance any legislation otherwise. They said, "He will not push to make the procedure [abortion] illegal."

They also point out that although Mr. McKenna did join 25 other attorney's general in an attempt to overturn Obamacare, he really doesn't want all of it overturned and actually supports some of it.

And regarding the Republican Party budget proposal that was authored primarily under the leadership of VP candidate Paul Ryan: The Times, on behalf of McKenna, is telling people, "While McKenna has praised Ryan's knowledge of the federal budget, he has not endorsed the proposal."

I do, but I don't. I am, but I'm not.

This is more than a "Revenue Experiment" by the Seattle Times.

It is a test of where the heart and conscience of the faith community in Washington State lies on the most important moral issues of our times.

I am not trying to tell you how to vote, but I hope and pray you think clearly through the lens of your own faith and biblical worldview, not through that of a very few evangelical leaders who agree with the Seattle Times and are, while "defending marriage," advocating for a man who has shown no inclination to support the most important values and beliefs of the Christian community. Who in fact openly supports abortion under the guise of "choice" while whispering he is personally pro-life.

That's nauseating.

And troubling to those who are not blinded by the drive to sit at his table, should he win.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Discerning. Be Discerning. Be Blessed.


  1. The choice voters face in this election is which of the 2 candidates on the ballot would best represent? On fiscal issues, social issues, environmental issues, business, healthcare and more. The other candidate for governor, Jay Inslee, has a track record in Congress of support for bigger government and higher taxes and deficit spending. Inslee proposes a new state agency that expands government control over businesses. On social issues, he is more liberal than Attorney General Rob McKenna. Which candidate best represents?

  2. This morning I looked up the name of the #3 candidate in the Primary election for Governor of Washington. Sharharam Hadian had about 46,000 votes. Insley and McKenna each had more than 600,000 votes. I believe Hadian should have at least 100 votes in the general election. He has mine.
    Larry, Yakima

  3. That's a good idea - I was going to skip voting for governor (since I cannot conscience voting for either Inslee or McKenna - I don't think 'lesser of two evils' applies when both support murder) but I had not considered a write-in vote for Shahram Hadian. He was my choice in the primary.

  4. Amonite has left a new comment on your post "McKenna and Gay "Marriage"---Sponsored by the Seat...":

    That's a good idea - I was going to skip voting for governor (since I cannot conscience voting for either Inslee or McKenna - I don't think 'lesser of two evils' applies when both support murder) but I had not considered a write-in vote for Shahram Hadian. He was my choice in the primary.

  5. Unfortunately Unfortunately country uses a two party system. I would like more choices but it just doesn't exist. It is either Rob or Jay. There is no question Rob is walking the 'fine' line to get elected. You all know how hard it is to get a Republican in office. I'm voting Rob because he is so incredibly intelligent and a thorough student of legal government. He knows that the governor can't introduce legislation so he can answer the questions regarding his policies honestly while still holding strong beliefs. His job is to sign legislation that makes his desk....our not

  6. Gary, for 2 weeks, you have refused to speak out against the TV ads on R74 that promote the "gay" flag and which openly support so-called domestic partnership law. Your continued silence, after being alerted to this by your brothers in Christ, must now be taken as approval of these ads.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. Whatever happens with R74, we will not forget that you went along with this. This is going to be a black mark on your name and reputation. A pastor must stand on the Word, not roll with the tide of campaign tactics.

  7. The problem is we live in a blue state, and Seattle is a bluest of blue city, and it's pretty tough to have any electoral impact in such an environment. Perhaps we can convince Seattle to become a city-state, as the rest of us are pretty much sane and care about family as God has ordained.

  8. 7:19 Very true. Take Seattle out of the mix and Washington is the same state it has always been--sane, caring, traditional values.

  9. 2:31 I am confused and amused, except it isn't funny. You are accusing Gary of "going along with" anything that promotes the gay agenda? You are telling Gary "This is going to be a black mark on your name and reputation. A pastor must stand on the Word, not roll with the tide of campaign tactics." You are either a plant from the other side or a lunatic trying to goad Gary to create further division within the Christian community at this critical time as people are voting. Gary is the one person who stands tall with a clear voice on biblical positions over the past many years. It was Joe Fuiten who was telling the Seattle Times during the R-71 campaign that he was thinking about what the church's response should be to the gay agenda. He was unsure. It was Joe Fuiten who along with a few others undermined R-71, which had R-71 succeeded there would have been no need for a R-74, it could not have passed the legislature. Fuiten slandered Gary in an op-ed that was all over the state. Gary remained silent toward his accussers, not allowing the press to make it into an event that would have hurt the faith community.
    I've seen the ad NOM is running with a gay flag. The fact that Gary is not taking them on gives many of us something to remember.I will remember he has proper motives, he is not angry, he holds biblical values, does not compromise and communicates very well. Again you are either a plant or a lunatic. Thanks Gary for standing tall.

  10. Rob McKenna and Jay Inslee are two peas in the same pod. I could not in good conscience vote for Rob Mckenna. I am writing in Shahram Hadian for governor. Gary you might consider contacting all Christian leaders that have a mailing list like yourself and encourage them to encourage those on their mailing list to write in Shahram. If we got enough votes to be a deciding factor in McKenna losing the election it might convince the Republican Party to either stand for their values or go home.Thank you for your stand for righteous government. God bless you for your efforts and may God bless Washington state and America with righteous government.

    Keith Easterly
    Moses Lake


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.